1 Peter 2:2 says we should be like newborn infants in our desire for the Word of God. One of the dangers in reading too many Christian books in place of the Bible is that they can take us away from the Word of God instead of doing what they are intended to do, in bringing us closer to it (and Him). If we spend time reading a book about the Bible instead of the Bible itself on a consistent basis somethings not right. Sometimes I know I sin in this way so i am not throwing stones in a glass house.
None the less, good Christian books can be very helpful in our pursuit of godliness...In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Read the Word and read good Christian books about the Incarnate Word.
Here is the latest update of the stuff i am trying to read outside of Scripture... What have you been reading??? Did you ask for any good books for Christmas?
Books I am currently reading:
Definite Atonement (Gary D. Long) Ch 4
Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life (Don Whitney) Ch 9
Future Israel (Barry Horner) Ch 9
The Exemplary Husband (Stuart Scott) Ch 3
Shepherding a Child's Heart (Tedd Tripp) Ch 11
Christian Living Beyond Belief (Cliff McManis) Ch 8
Numerous Jude commentaries (various authors)
Books i might never finish:
The Message of the O.T. (by Mark Dever)
What Jesus Demands from the World (by John Piper)
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1 (John Calvin) (Book 1, Ch 17)
Books I’ve finished in the last year or so:
Pages from Church History (Stephen J. Nichols)
Assured by God: Living in the Fullness of God's Grace (various authors)
The Reformation (Stephen J. Nichols)
Spurgeon VS Hyper-Calvinism (Iain Murray)
A Scottish Christian Heritage (Iain Murray)
Meetings that Work (A Strauch)
The Truth War (By John MacArthur)
No Place for the Truth (by David F. Wells).
The Cross and Christian Ministry (D.A. Carson).
Women's Ministry in the Local Church (Ligon Duncan/Susan Hunt)
The Holiness of God (by R.C. Sproul)
Growing Up Christian (by Paul Graustein)
How America Lost Her Innocence (By Steve Gallagher)
From Pride to Humility (pamphlet by Dr. Stuart Scott)
Humility: True Greatness (by C.J. Mahaney)
Biblical Eldership (by A. Strauch)
Expository Preaching With Word Pictures (Jack Hughes)
The Reformed Pastor (by Richard Baxter)
Legacy of Sovereign Joy (by John Piper)
Whose Money Is It Anyways (By John MacArthur)
The Treasure Principle (by Randy Alcorn)
Baptist Life and Thought (By William Brackney)
By His Grace and For His Glory (Dr. Nettles) large sections
Knowing God (J.I. Packer) through ch 19
Way of the Master: Evangelism Training (Ray Comfort)
Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth (Wayne Grudem) large sections
Girl Talk (Carolyn Mahaney)
Various articles and commentaries on 1 Cor 11:2-16
Various articles and commentaries on 1 Tim 2:8-15
Various articles and commentaries on Titus 2
TMS Journal (on New Covenant Theology)
Books i've recently purchased:
Goldingay's commentaries on the Psalms.
The Minor Prophets editor McComisky
Respectable Sins by Jerry Bridges
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Preaching and pancake syrup
As I was eating breakfast this morning the following thoughts on preaching came to mind.
My wife made blueberry pancakes for the family breakfast this morning. They were delicious ‘panners’ made perfect when topped off with maple syrup. The syrup I have grown accustomed to is imitation “light” syrup. As a matter of fact I really don’t enjoy “regular” syrup anymore. It is too sweet for my liking. I would even choose light syrup over tree-tapped genuine Vermont maple syrup.
Sadly, I realized that many people are wired the same way when it comes to preaching. Many Christians have become so accustomed to shallow evangelical principalizing that when real expository preaching is tasted it’s rejected (at least initially).
R.L. Dabney refers to a period in church history when Scriptural truth is presented but not in its Scriptural dress. That has become the most accepted and familiar mode of preaching in most evangelical pulpits these days. I’m not thinking about the Joel Osteens of the world in this particular post; I’m talking about men who honestly think they’re presenting an expository sermon and of congregations who think they’re actually hearing one. It’s not unbiblical truth that’s presented, its good doctrine that’s just not presented in Scriptural dress.
Dabney rightly believed that the golden age of preaching is when Scriptural truth is presented in Scriptural dress. That of course is the power of true expository preaching. When we preach, we’re called to speak as it were, the very words of God (1 Peter 4:10-11). This is best accomplished when gifted men commitment themselves wholly to Bible exposition.
The problem is that many people want so many illustrations, stories, or application points that no time is left for true exposition. Who wants to hear about the historical background of Romans when in that time 3 or 4 stories, illustrations, or jokes could be shared? Now most people wouldn’t say that aloud but that is in fact what they’re thinking.
Those who are most gifted in oratory are often most prone to this extreme. It’s what I call shallow evangelical principalizing. I noticed this response over 10 years when I was a student at the Master’s College. During a school sponsored Bible conference three gifted men brought the Word. All were great communicators but one was especially humorous and “relatable”. Unfortunately his sermons were also the lightest of the three. His preaching was thoroughly evangelical but not truly expositional or deep. Still most of the students I talked with in the dorms during and after the conference thought his sermons were the “best.”
Engaging oratory and great communication is not synonymous with a great sermon. In our preaching we should seek both light and heat. I’m not calling for dry, lifeless, preaching here. Passionate, clear, text-driven preaching is what our people most desperately need. Just don’t be surprised if you bring that type of syrup to your people if they initially reject it in favor of the “light” stuff.
My wife made blueberry pancakes for the family breakfast this morning. They were delicious ‘panners’ made perfect when topped off with maple syrup. The syrup I have grown accustomed to is imitation “light” syrup. As a matter of fact I really don’t enjoy “regular” syrup anymore. It is too sweet for my liking. I would even choose light syrup over tree-tapped genuine Vermont maple syrup.
Sadly, I realized that many people are wired the same way when it comes to preaching. Many Christians have become so accustomed to shallow evangelical principalizing that when real expository preaching is tasted it’s rejected (at least initially).
R.L. Dabney refers to a period in church history when Scriptural truth is presented but not in its Scriptural dress. That has become the most accepted and familiar mode of preaching in most evangelical pulpits these days. I’m not thinking about the Joel Osteens of the world in this particular post; I’m talking about men who honestly think they’re presenting an expository sermon and of congregations who think they’re actually hearing one. It’s not unbiblical truth that’s presented, its good doctrine that’s just not presented in Scriptural dress.
Dabney rightly believed that the golden age of preaching is when Scriptural truth is presented in Scriptural dress. That of course is the power of true expository preaching. When we preach, we’re called to speak as it were, the very words of God (1 Peter 4:10-11). This is best accomplished when gifted men commitment themselves wholly to Bible exposition.
The problem is that many people want so many illustrations, stories, or application points that no time is left for true exposition. Who wants to hear about the historical background of Romans when in that time 3 or 4 stories, illustrations, or jokes could be shared? Now most people wouldn’t say that aloud but that is in fact what they’re thinking.
Those who are most gifted in oratory are often most prone to this extreme. It’s what I call shallow evangelical principalizing. I noticed this response over 10 years when I was a student at the Master’s College. During a school sponsored Bible conference three gifted men brought the Word. All were great communicators but one was especially humorous and “relatable”. Unfortunately his sermons were also the lightest of the three. His preaching was thoroughly evangelical but not truly expositional or deep. Still most of the students I talked with in the dorms during and after the conference thought his sermons were the “best.”
Engaging oratory and great communication is not synonymous with a great sermon. In our preaching we should seek both light and heat. I’m not calling for dry, lifeless, preaching here. Passionate, clear, text-driven preaching is what our people most desperately need. Just don’t be surprised if you bring that type of syrup to your people if they initially reject it in favor of the “light” stuff.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Spoken Word?
Some people may wonder why we at First Baptist Church commit almost half of the public worship service to the individual proclamation of the Word of God? Certain Evangelicals have suggested that preaching itself is outdated and should be replaced by more modern alternatives. Dr. R. Albert Mohler was recently asked the following question: “Must the sermon be a monologue? If not, should it be?”
Dr. Mohler’s response to this question is very insightful. “The very shape of this question is interesting. In the first place, I would not consider the public proclamation of God’s Word to be best characterized as monologue. It is one voice speaking, but this voice is not speaking on behalf of himself, but as the one charged with proclaiming and teaching the Word of God. At the same time, there does not seem to be a biblical warrant for a more dialogical form of preaching. If anything, the biblical model appears to assign the preaching responsibility to an individual who dares to speak on behalf of God by presenting and applying God’s Word.
I think of a text like Nehemiah 8:1-8. In that setting, Ezra and his colleagues "read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood their reading." Earlier in this text, we are told that "the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law." Those preaching spoke with authority. At the same time, it would not be appropriate to suggest that these hearers were passive. They were active recipients of the preached Word. They were "attentive."
In the same way, a church congregation is not to sit passively in the pew merely observing the preaching of the Word. To the contrary, the congregation should be actively involved in the disciplines of hearing, receiving, and responding to God’s Word as it’s preached by the one who is invested with those responsibilities and gifts.
A similar approach is evident in the New Testament. When Paul instructs Timothy about his preaching responsibilities, nothing in the text suggests that Timothy will be involved in a dialectical enterprise with the congregation. Instead, Paul charges Timothy with the sacred and solemn responsibility to preach the Word "in season and out of season." If anything, he warns Timothy against taking the response of his hearers into too much consideration. This can hardly be described as a dialogue.
As I see it, the push for a more dialogical form of preaching is a redefinition of preaching as described in the Scriptures. This shift seems to go hand-in-hand with larger cultural movements against the idea of teaching authority and the very idea of an authoritative Word. The last thing modern evangelicalism needs is the substitution of congregational "dialogue" for biblical preaching. This plays into all of our modern temptations and, in the end, threatens to remove the authoritative Word from our midst.”
This March we celebrate 34 years of faithful Bible exposition from Pastor Joe Flatt. As we thank God for his faithfulness we must constantly ask ourselves am I an active or a passive listener when it comes to the Word of God? James 1:22 reminds us, But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
Dr. Mohler’s response to this question is very insightful. “The very shape of this question is interesting. In the first place, I would not consider the public proclamation of God’s Word to be best characterized as monologue. It is one voice speaking, but this voice is not speaking on behalf of himself, but as the one charged with proclaiming and teaching the Word of God. At the same time, there does not seem to be a biblical warrant for a more dialogical form of preaching. If anything, the biblical model appears to assign the preaching responsibility to an individual who dares to speak on behalf of God by presenting and applying God’s Word.
I think of a text like Nehemiah 8:1-8. In that setting, Ezra and his colleagues "read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood their reading." Earlier in this text, we are told that "the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law." Those preaching spoke with authority. At the same time, it would not be appropriate to suggest that these hearers were passive. They were active recipients of the preached Word. They were "attentive."
In the same way, a church congregation is not to sit passively in the pew merely observing the preaching of the Word. To the contrary, the congregation should be actively involved in the disciplines of hearing, receiving, and responding to God’s Word as it’s preached by the one who is invested with those responsibilities and gifts.
A similar approach is evident in the New Testament. When Paul instructs Timothy about his preaching responsibilities, nothing in the text suggests that Timothy will be involved in a dialectical enterprise with the congregation. Instead, Paul charges Timothy with the sacred and solemn responsibility to preach the Word "in season and out of season." If anything, he warns Timothy against taking the response of his hearers into too much consideration. This can hardly be described as a dialogue.
As I see it, the push for a more dialogical form of preaching is a redefinition of preaching as described in the Scriptures. This shift seems to go hand-in-hand with larger cultural movements against the idea of teaching authority and the very idea of an authoritative Word. The last thing modern evangelicalism needs is the substitution of congregational "dialogue" for biblical preaching. This plays into all of our modern temptations and, in the end, threatens to remove the authoritative Word from our midst.”
This March we celebrate 34 years of faithful Bible exposition from Pastor Joe Flatt. As we thank God for his faithfulness we must constantly ask ourselves am I an active or a passive listener when it comes to the Word of God? James 1:22 reminds us, But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
Christians and Muslims unite?
If you are not aware a group of Muslim Clerics recently wrote “A Common Word Between Us and You” an attempt to find common ground between Christian and Muslims.
Even more recently “300 Leading Christian Scholars” (Obviously ever word in that statement is open to interpretations!) published an endorsement of this document in the NY Times: (just like with “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” some of these folks are a real disappointment! i.e. Timothy George, Bill Hybels, Tony Jones, Brain McLaren, Richard Mouw, Robert Schuller, John Stackhouse, John Stott, Rick Warren, Christopher Wright) – see all the of the signatories to this “Christian Response” which was published in the NY Times here.
Hear and watch John Piper’s response to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTY-9FY13kw
Even more recently “300 Leading Christian Scholars” (Obviously ever word in that statement is open to interpretations!) published an endorsement of this document in the NY Times: (just like with “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” some of these folks are a real disappointment! i.e. Timothy George, Bill Hybels, Tony Jones, Brain McLaren, Richard Mouw, Robert Schuller, John Stackhouse, John Stott, Rick Warren, Christopher Wright) – see all the of the signatories to this “Christian Response” which was published in the NY Times here.
Hear and watch John Piper’s response to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTY-9FY13kw
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Back from Cincy
14 teens and 7 adult staff enjoyed a great trip to S. Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio this past weekend. Greg Stancil brought us the Word. We were all blessed by his practical sermons from the fourth chapter of James. We went to Perfect North for some fun on the ski slopes and to the Newport Aquariam for some fun with the sharks. We spent a couple nights at the Cincy Marriott and enjoyed our traditional skit night and some floor hockey. We are praying that the Lord will use His Word to impact the lives of all who attended this winter retreat. Thanks for your prayers!
Monday, January 14, 2008
Postseason Fun
It was a great weekend here in Indy. Besides quality time with my family and church friends I was able to enjoy some great football games. My Chicago Bears did not qualify for the postseason this year but I love the league especially during the playoffs.
Football was meant to be played outdoors…The classic snow game in Green Bay saw the continued resurgence of the living legend Brett Favre. The game in New England saw Mr. Tom Brady one up himself in a flawless game to top the well coached Jaguars.
Every team I cheered for won on Saturday and on Sunday…or maybe I should say every team I cheered against this weekend lost. It was great to see Peyton Manning go down Sunday. He once again failed to deliver a pass when his team needed one most. What’s Peyton’s career playoff record again??? Manning played a very good game but not a great game like Brady. Had Tom Brady thrown 2 INTS (like Manning did) New England would not have gotten by Jacksonville. The Jags played a great game and still lost.
The Colts on the other hand could not beat San Diego even though the Chargers were playing with an (average) backup QB during the 4th Qtr with the game on the line and with their team MVP (LT) injured on the sideline. It was another devastating loss for an underachieving franchise.
I did feel bad for the classiest coach in the league (Dungy), especially seeing this could be his last game as a Colt’s head coach. Tony Dungy is an example to everyone about how to lose a hard fought battle with class.
As much as don’t like Eli Manning, I had to cheer against Jerry Jones, TO, and Tony Simpson Romo. Romo is now 0-2 in the postseason but does have a bright career in front of him.
It looks like Tom Brady and Brett Favre will battle for this year’s Super Bowl trophy (MVP). If the Packer’s play like they did on Saturday they could beat New England. Of course if Tom Brady plays like he did on Saturday we should crown the Patriots right now.
Football was meant to be played outdoors…The classic snow game in Green Bay saw the continued resurgence of the living legend Brett Favre. The game in New England saw Mr. Tom Brady one up himself in a flawless game to top the well coached Jaguars.
Every team I cheered for won on Saturday and on Sunday…or maybe I should say every team I cheered against this weekend lost. It was great to see Peyton Manning go down Sunday. He once again failed to deliver a pass when his team needed one most. What’s Peyton’s career playoff record again??? Manning played a very good game but not a great game like Brady. Had Tom Brady thrown 2 INTS (like Manning did) New England would not have gotten by Jacksonville. The Jags played a great game and still lost.
The Colts on the other hand could not beat San Diego even though the Chargers were playing with an (average) backup QB during the 4th Qtr with the game on the line and with their team MVP (LT) injured on the sideline. It was another devastating loss for an underachieving franchise.
I did feel bad for the classiest coach in the league (Dungy), especially seeing this could be his last game as a Colt’s head coach. Tony Dungy is an example to everyone about how to lose a hard fought battle with class.
As much as don’t like Eli Manning, I had to cheer against Jerry Jones, TO, and Tony Simpson Romo. Romo is now 0-2 in the postseason but does have a bright career in front of him.
It looks like Tom Brady and Brett Favre will battle for this year’s Super Bowl trophy (MVP). If the Packer’s play like they did on Saturday they could beat New England. Of course if Tom Brady plays like he did on Saturday we should crown the Patriots right now.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Integrity
The Freedom of Integrity - Part III
Not As Pleasing Men
Post by Jerry Wragg taken from http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/
Paul’s second non-negotiable of integrity is to serve with spiritual courage. The Thessalonians were being told that the missionaries spoke bold words to gain manipulative power over the new converts, and that at the first sign of opposition they would abandon the sheep. Essentially, Paul was being defamed as a mere hireling. Jesus had chided hirelings who feign protection but are cowards in the face of danger (John 10: 11-15). Self-preservation at all costs is a weakness, not a virtue. But was it true of Paul and the others? Again, he appeals to the spiritual courage they had demonstrated some one hundred miles to the northeast in the city of Philippi. Even after they had “suffered and been shamefully treated”, they “had boldness in…God to declare…the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict” (1 Thess 2:2). Paul literally hobbled into Thessalonica—blood still drying on his body from the beating in Philippi—and began to teach in the synagogue, the most confrontational and dangerous environment the truth of Christ could infiltrate. After several weeks (perhaps even 2 to 3 months by some calculations) of unvarnished gospel ministry, the truth hit hard upon stony hearts, at which point the missionaries were secretly whisked away by the new believers who wanted to preserve the lives of their only trusted shepherds. I can almost hear Paul, reluctant to be sent away, strongly contending for the opportunity to remain and teach yet again in the synagogue.
Are these the actions of a man without integrity? The answer is a resounding “No!” A godly man has nothing to fear because his conscience has been “approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel,” and he speaks “not as pleasing men, but God” who sees what’s in the heart (1 Thess 2:4). Solomon, not to be outdone, declared that “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion” (Prov 28:1). Check spiritual leaders! Do they demonstrate spiritual courage? Do they trust the work and the word of God? Do they unfold the scriptures without shrinking back? Do they give an answer with biblical clarity? Do they willingly invite questions about doctrine, ministry, character, service, etc? If not, the sheep will become vulnerable, and accusations will eventually have a legitimate target. Integrity marked by courageous leadership is a tremendous safeguard.
Check out ET for the full post....
Not As Pleasing Men
Post by Jerry Wragg taken from http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/
Paul’s second non-negotiable of integrity is to serve with spiritual courage. The Thessalonians were being told that the missionaries spoke bold words to gain manipulative power over the new converts, and that at the first sign of opposition they would abandon the sheep. Essentially, Paul was being defamed as a mere hireling. Jesus had chided hirelings who feign protection but are cowards in the face of danger (John 10: 11-15). Self-preservation at all costs is a weakness, not a virtue. But was it true of Paul and the others? Again, he appeals to the spiritual courage they had demonstrated some one hundred miles to the northeast in the city of Philippi. Even after they had “suffered and been shamefully treated”, they “had boldness in…God to declare…the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict” (1 Thess 2:2). Paul literally hobbled into Thessalonica—blood still drying on his body from the beating in Philippi—and began to teach in the synagogue, the most confrontational and dangerous environment the truth of Christ could infiltrate. After several weeks (perhaps even 2 to 3 months by some calculations) of unvarnished gospel ministry, the truth hit hard upon stony hearts, at which point the missionaries were secretly whisked away by the new believers who wanted to preserve the lives of their only trusted shepherds. I can almost hear Paul, reluctant to be sent away, strongly contending for the opportunity to remain and teach yet again in the synagogue.
Are these the actions of a man without integrity? The answer is a resounding “No!” A godly man has nothing to fear because his conscience has been “approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel,” and he speaks “not as pleasing men, but God” who sees what’s in the heart (1 Thess 2:4). Solomon, not to be outdone, declared that “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion” (Prov 28:1). Check spiritual leaders! Do they demonstrate spiritual courage? Do they trust the work and the word of God? Do they unfold the scriptures without shrinking back? Do they give an answer with biblical clarity? Do they willingly invite questions about doctrine, ministry, character, service, etc? If not, the sheep will become vulnerable, and accusations will eventually have a legitimate target. Integrity marked by courageous leadership is a tremendous safeguard.
Check out ET for the full post....
In defense of Hillary...
I am not going to vote for Hillary Clinton in the next major election. As a Christian my convictions are both pro-life and pro-family (among many things). I see the pro-choice movement and the homosexual agenda going against both those essential things. Much more could and should be said about those issues but that is not the purpose of the post.
The other day while campaigning in New Hampshire Hillary Clinton had a moment where reporters thought they saw her tear up (or start to cry). The News jumped on this, many saying it would ruin Clinton’s hopes of winning this state’s primary, etc, etc. They called it a potential “Muskie moment.” Muskie was said to have cried after reading a newspapers attack on his wife. Muskie fervently denied that was the case (since heaven forbid a man cry over someone slandering his wife in public) saying it was snow flakes.
The logic behind this thinking is that people in public office have to be strong (which I agree with). The logic continues that people who cry (at least in public) demonstrate a lack of toughness and composure (which I don’t agree with).
I look to the strongest person who ever lived as proof to back my opinions. Jesus Christ was the ideal man’s man because he was 100% God and 100% man. This Man never sinned! He was the most amazing Person to ever walk the face of this earth. To endure the weight of the cross I believe he was stronger then anyone whose ever gone before him (or who will come after him). That strength was both outward and inward! He was a real man.
None the less the gospels do record some occasions in which our Lord wept (Luke 19:41, John 11:35). Weeping is not simply crying, it’s crying like a baby. As an adult I have only wept on one occasion (at least that I can remember). Jesus cried, and even did so in public.
So what’s my point? If Hillary Clinton did tear up during her campaign run I don’t think that’s a very big deal. As a matter of fact I think it’s potentially a good thing since I don’t want a robot running our country. The fact she is a woman and thus may be more emotional is not a huge deal to me either. (I'm not voting for her because of her voting record and because her convictions are not, atleat in my humble opinion, biblically informed).
One reporter commenting on this story put it this way, “But Clinton may shed no tears on the campaign trail. The same people who complain that she is cold and unemotional would seize on it as a sign of weakness and vulnerability.” Just because you might not like what Mrs. Clinton stands for don’t hold her to an unreasonable or an unbiblical standard.
Genuine tears do demonstrate vulnerability but not necessarily weakness! If you don’t agree with me just look to the gospels my friends!
The other day while campaigning in New Hampshire Hillary Clinton had a moment where reporters thought they saw her tear up (or start to cry). The News jumped on this, many saying it would ruin Clinton’s hopes of winning this state’s primary, etc, etc. They called it a potential “Muskie moment.” Muskie was said to have cried after reading a newspapers attack on his wife. Muskie fervently denied that was the case (since heaven forbid a man cry over someone slandering his wife in public) saying it was snow flakes.
The logic behind this thinking is that people in public office have to be strong (which I agree with). The logic continues that people who cry (at least in public) demonstrate a lack of toughness and composure (which I don’t agree with).
I look to the strongest person who ever lived as proof to back my opinions. Jesus Christ was the ideal man’s man because he was 100% God and 100% man. This Man never sinned! He was the most amazing Person to ever walk the face of this earth. To endure the weight of the cross I believe he was stronger then anyone whose ever gone before him (or who will come after him). That strength was both outward and inward! He was a real man.
None the less the gospels do record some occasions in which our Lord wept (Luke 19:41, John 11:35). Weeping is not simply crying, it’s crying like a baby. As an adult I have only wept on one occasion (at least that I can remember). Jesus cried, and even did so in public.
So what’s my point? If Hillary Clinton did tear up during her campaign run I don’t think that’s a very big deal. As a matter of fact I think it’s potentially a good thing since I don’t want a robot running our country. The fact she is a woman and thus may be more emotional is not a huge deal to me either. (I'm not voting for her because of her voting record and because her convictions are not, atleat in my humble opinion, biblically informed).
One reporter commenting on this story put it this way, “But Clinton may shed no tears on the campaign trail. The same people who complain that she is cold and unemotional would seize on it as a sign of weakness and vulnerability.” Just because you might not like what Mrs. Clinton stands for don’t hold her to an unreasonable or an unbiblical standard.
Genuine tears do demonstrate vulnerability but not necessarily weakness! If you don’t agree with me just look to the gospels my friends!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)